Saturday, February 28, 2004

The fight is on. I am calling on you and everyone you know to stand up for making justice for all a reality in the US. Please follow this link and take action to demand an end to the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment (aka Unequal Rights Amendment) and a beginning for marriage equality.

My goal is to recruit 1000 people to the Million for Marriage effort. Please join us.

The mindset that made this movie is the same one that caused feminist Monique Wittig to write:

“There was a time when you were not a slave, remember that. You walked alone, full of laughter, you bathed bare-bellied…You say, it does not exist. But remember. Make an effort to remember, or, failing that, invent”.

And so I was not surprised when the image of evil had a wickedly female face. I was not suprised when a snake slithered from around her feet and, of course, the Christ stomped on it.

The women in the film cry a lot, watch a lot, constantly flit around the edges of the action.....

Wednesday, February 25, 2004

I got the following from my son's website, out Oregon way. He says it's being emailed around, but this is the first I've seen it. It sure does make the point -- at least it should to anyone who doesn't look at the world through a two-inch pipe.

As certain politicians work diligently to prevent marriage between two people of the same sex, others of us have been busy drafting a Constitutional Amendment codifying all marriages entirely on biblical principles. After all, God wouldn't want us to pick and choose which of the Scriptures we elevate to civil law and which we choose to ignore:

Draft of a Constitutional Amendment to Defend Biblical Marriage:
* Marriage in the United States of America shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5.)
* Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines in addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21)
* A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut 22:13-21)
* Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden. (Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30)
* Since marriage is for life, neither the US Constitution nor any state law shall permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9-12)
* If a married man dies without children, his brother must marry the widow. If the brother refuses to marry the widow, or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law. (Gen. 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10)
* In lieu of marriage (if there are no acceptable men to be found), a woman shall get her father drunk and have sex with him. (Gen 19:31-36)

I hope this helps to clarify the finer details of the Government's righteous struggle against the infidels and heathens among us

Saturday, February 21, 2004

I have spent the last two days listening to the sports talk show radio commentary concerning the University of Colorado football team's use of sex for player recruitment, and allegations of rape. I have not heard any guy - be it host, guest, or call-in voice - defend what happen or try to excuse the coach or the team. In fact, the voices all seem to be in agreement about how unacceptable it all is. Here is a brief overview of the story:

"Three women have sued the school in federal court, saying they were raped by football athletes in 2001 and the university had done nothing after a high school student accused a player of rape in 1997. In the past few weeks, three more cases have been disclosed. Former Colorado player Katie Hnida says she was raped by a teammate in 2000 and a one-time athletic department worker says she was assaulted by a player in 2001. University President Elizabeth Hoffman placed Barnett on administrative leave for criticizing Hnida's on-field performance, telling reporters that Hnida was "not only a girl" but a "terrible" player. Hoffman also said she was distressed by a remark attributed to Barnett in a 2001 police report that if another woman pursued rape charges against a player, Barnett "would back his player 100 percent." CBS News.

Things have not fared well for women lately. So the rumor goes. Maybe we should think of this as that moment when, in a slide down a cliff, there is a lifesaving chance to grab a foothold so we can stop the descent and begin to climb again.

We seem to at least be at a stage where people universally believe the sex for recruitment and rape as unacceptable, and lame good ol' boy reactions to the accusations, inexcusable. (I know what you are thinking. Just wait.)

But there is something else that all this demonstrates. When Coach Barnett, in response to his former player's accusation of rape, criticized Katie's abilities and labelled her as "just a girl", something unique happened: Even the most obtuse could hear the irrelevence and the unfairness of the attack. Even the thickest of the thick. This is an incredibly rare event. When something is universally accepted - here, bad logic and unfairness - it becomes a point of reference, as dependable as a yardstick and as trustworthy as a thermometer. This means we now have a standard that has alluded us in the past (remember Anita Hill?).

Ok, maybe it is a crappy one, or a low one, or - pick an adjective - but at least we have one. And as a lawyer, I look at a standard as a minimum requirement, a board from which to spring. In the common law we would call it precedent. A judge's decision that sets forth a guiding standard is called legal precedent. It is the law based upon the facts and circumstances presented in that case and it controls all other cases with similar facts and circumstances. If the precedent favors our position, but our facts are different, then we work very hard to make that precedent apply to our case. To do that we draw analogies between our facts and issues and those of the earlier decision. If we are sucessful, than the new decision in our case serves to increase the scope, the reach, and the applicability of the earlier precedent. Someday someone will work to expand upon the decision in my case, and so it goes.

Seldom do little gems like Barnett's fury land at one's feet like frozen turkeys from a helicopter. But trust me. If you can draw a simple analogy between his sexist lack of logic and whatever ubiquitous nonsensical sexist piece of garbage you are challenging on any given day of the year, you may just be able to connect with someone who would otherwise shut you out for being too academic or too Atlantic Monthly, or god forbid, a woman-libber. Battles need to be fought at all different levels, and this kind of amunition should not be overlooked.

I am not sure this makes a much sense on paper as it does in my head. I am multitasking this morning. I just think we can do something with this.

Thursday, February 19, 2004

Who made the rule that you don't put mascara on false eyelashes, anyway? Certainly not The Lord. According to ordained minister and former theme-park hostess Tammy Faye, Jesus was a fun guy and wouldn’t have minded this or any of the other decorative liberties taken by one of his favourite accomplices.
The issue of cosmetic restraint is just one of the many beguiling questions tackled by Reverend Tammy Faye Messner in her new self-help text I Will Survive... And You Will, Too! The recently released book, whose author is firmly positioned front and centre as Inspirational Celebrity Survivor, also offers friendly advice on the correct handling of regret, love, loss and wigs.
There are also some recipes.
One topic the book doesn’t directly address is the demise of the PTL, or Praise The Lord, phenom she helped build with her former husband Jim Bakker.
During the 1980s, Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker reigned as televangelism’s glitziest and most likeable couple. Despite accusations of tremendous high-living that included reports of wardrobe items being flown cross country in a private jet at a six figure cost and gold-plated plumbing fixtures, the all-crying, all-singing duo struck a chord with millions of ordinary credit-card carrying Christians.
From her home in North Carolina, with dogs Muffin and Tuppins nipping at her hot pink heels (“I painted my shoes the most gorgeous colour with nail polish!”), the Reverend explains the homespun appeal of the PTL Club.
“We were a husband and wife that loved life and we were real. I came on the air mad at Jim many times. And I told people “I’m mad at my husband today. I’m really mad at this guy today!” I’m a brutally honest person, and I think that works for people.”
“You know, life’s not perfect and we let people know that our life wasn’t perfect either.”
The world beyond Christian television learned just how imperfect the Bakkers’ lives could get when in 1987 Jim resigned from PTL following a scandal involving ministry employee and future Playboy playmate Jessica Hahn.
Allegations of shenanigans with Bible Study babes aside, the worst was to come.
Television viewers may recall the offer of lifetime partnerships to "Heritage USA", a Christian vacation park in Fort Mill, South Carolina. These partners were promised free accommodations pending availability in return for their donations. It was found that PTL did not keep its pledge and was accused of knowingly desisting from building rooms for guests and partners.
In 1988, Reverend Jim Bakker was indicted on several counts of fraud and one count of conspiracy. He was initially sentenced to 45 years of prison.
By the time Jim was paroled in 1993, he and Tammy had divorced.
So, does the new downsized, self-help propelled Tammy feel differently about prosperity preaching today?
“No, I don’t. The bible says that the worker is worthy. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with being able to live in a nice home and drive in a nice car.”
Tammy Faye explains that nice digs are, very often, the by-product of a Christian life. “That’s one of the exciting things about serving God. He will help you to prosper. I don’t think that’s wrong.”
The Reverend contends that media reports of their lavish lifestyle were grossly exaggerated. Their so-called mansion, she insists, was a lakeside shack with rotten floorboards.
“We were very handy and we fixed that house up and that’s where we lived almost the whole time we were at Heritage USA.”
All monies, she said, went directly to build the Ministry of Fun that was Heritage USA. “God’s people willingly paid for it.”
“We didn’t misuse that money. They said we took millions of dollars.” Indeed, that’s what they said.
The Reverend, who is still on agreeable terms with her former husband, is eager to clear this matter up – despite no question about the scandal having been asked. In a final effort to elucidate she offers, a little unhelpfully, “We didn’t live any different than anybody else who was at our economic level.”
One has to wonder if, at any interval, Tammy’s faith was tested. No, she says, it never really was, but she did find one instruction a little hard to take.
“The Bible says: In all things give thanks for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you and that was the hardest verse in the bible for me to get my head around.”
While she may not have always been able to give thanks for the dark times, she acknowledges that her experiences can help her help others as she does in her latest instructional manual.
“I was sent to earth just to help people. I’ve been through almost everything a person can go through. I’ve been through cancer, I’ve been through great loss.”
“I went to the top. The very top you can go. Except maybe president of the United States.”
She has, she says, visited the bottom in the last decade. And now she is residing “somewhere in the middle”.
This middle ground, for a High Trailer artefact like Tammy Faye, definitely seems fertile.
Beginning in the year 2000, Messner began to stalk the terrain truly befitting any oddball American who might have been written by David Lynch.
Her first legitimate stop in Weirdsville USA was the Sundance film festival for her own premiere. The camp, faintly artsy and wildly sympathetic documentary The Eyes of Tammy Faye narrated by former Drag Superstar RuPaul introduced her to a gay congregation. Despite the fact that she thinks gay marriage is wrong and that homosexuality is a sin (“But no worse than any other sin. I’d rather talk to a homosexual than a liar or a cheat.”) her flock of fruits is growing.
The film, she says, “changed my life”.
In the last year or so, she’s shared a bill in San Francisco with John Waters. “He’s a nice man,” she says of the celebrated oddity “he just has a dirty mouth and a dirty mind. So after he finished, I said to the audience ‘I got a mop and I’m gonna clean up after John Waters!’”
I ask if an Internet rumour that she will duet with Marilyn Manson has any substance. “Well, no honey. What happened was he came into town to do a concert and he asked if he could meet with me. Well, I’m not gonna say no! So we met at a television station and we talked about God for two hours.”
She has also been talking God recently with moustachioed porn protagonist Ron Jeremy. She and Jeremy have been teamed with former CHiPs television star Erik Estrada and eighties white rap embarrassment Vanilla Ice for a Big Brother style reality experiment called Surreal Life.
The Reverend is thrilled about the premiere of her new show on America’s WB. “I have a 64 foot billboard up on Times Square and I ‘m on all the buses in New York.”
She cites Surreal Life as “one of the top ten experiences of my life”. Somehow, it’s hardly surprising that several of Tammy’s fondest memories have been caught on tape.
Tammy Faye is an American original. She’s met everyone and is up for anything. Her next collaboration or scripture meeting could involve anyone from Michael Moore to Paris Hilton. Or both.
“When I was a little girl” says Tammy Faye “I would be riding up and down on my bike in International Falls Minnesota I had one prayer: God please don’t let my life be boring.”
“Honey, He answered that prayer.”

Tuesday, February 17, 2004

"Challengers is a youth program (technically speaking, the Southern Baptist “youth mission education organization”) for seventh through twelfth grade boys. While the national organization is specifically designed for that audience, some groups in local churches may deviate from that (they might have sixth graders, or they might include girls as well."

When I left work at the end of the day Friday, I got a little reminder of what a multitudinous milieu of attitudes and thought processes we're living in. I walked across the parking lot to my car, and when I got close saw a frozen gob of spit on one of my windows. No mistaking it. I couldn't see any other frozen substances of any kind on my car; just this one loogie, hocked across one of the back windows on the driver's side. That's the spot where I have fastened, on the inside of the window, a fairly innocuous pro-choice bumper sticker. Hmmm. Coincidence or conspiracy?
A quick check of the window on the other side of the car, the window that displays the sign commenting on the war in Iraq, showed spotless, clear glass, so I assume that the person who left the iced-up editorial comment is a one-issue expectorator. Tsk. That must get pretty boring.
As usual, I'm left to reflect: is this a great country, or what?! Seriously. Freedom of expression. Freedom of expectoration. Goddess Bless America!

I do not wish to detract from DB's important post with a simple structural tool, but I think this is useful. It is a rollover feature designed for acronyms that I have adjusted to use with my blogroll so that I can descriptively label each blog. This way, a long list does not seem too imposing to review. If you go to my blog you can see how it works, and then copy the format via my source code. (If I try to write the html in a post, the post will not publish.) Another usefull site I just found is here, and work with the instruction for "acronym".

And Dru, I immediately thought Rush too, and share your sentiments. We need more women in politics and more in the courts. We have no one to blame but ourselves at this point in history. If anyone knows of a group(s) that encourages women and girls to run for political office, please leave me a comment. Thanks.

Friday, February 13, 2004

But the chairman of an allied organization, Wendy Chavkin of Physicians for Reproductive Health Choice, said the subpoenas were cause for grave concern.

"Not only is this Justice Department and this attorney general profoundly anti-abortion, but they have a questionable commitment to civil liberties," Chavkin said.

She said the subpoenas seemed to be a tactic of intimidation comparable to a subpoena issued recently in a federal grand jury probe ordering Drake University to turn over names of certain anti-war activists.

I would imagine it's hard to avoid being a total fucking hypocrite (not to mention a LIAR when he paraphrases the attorneys thusly:"we don't want their identities, what we want is the doctors' names who are performing these operations because it's against the law.", because they did not SUBPEONA the records to get the DOCTORS' names, the doctors are the ones who brought the case in the first place.) in that case, even though Rush is a criminal (and we all know how Rush feels about criminals) and the women who received the abortions are not on trial, nor should they be.

I'm thinking there's more to this than just Rush and drugs and abortion and medical records and big brother, though. Last night, on one of the NPR shows, there was a distinction made about medical records of prescription drug users - how those records need to be protected because we can't have people in pain avoiding treatment because they fear they will be outed as prescription drug users. Well, what about a woman who needs an abortion? I suppose it doesn't matter what she fears. I suppose it's more about "embarrassment" as so sexistly put forward at the end of this article.

"If there's a law, it should be followed," DeCook said. "It can be enforced without embarrassing the woman by dragging her name out in public."

Because, you know, it's a fight for our inherent rights to demand our addictions be kept secret, but it's a fight for mere personal pride if we would rather not reveal our medical histories pertaining to our right to choose.

Tuesday, February 10, 2004

If you’ve ever hankered to find out just what the Messiah thinks of fragrance-free facial cleanser, fresh breath and Britney’s choice in footwear, help is finally at hand. Answers to these and assorted other contemporary spiritual questions, like “If God made pot, why can't I smoke it?” are now available online for a very reasonable $US14.99.
Revolve might look like an uptight life-style mag aimed at Teen girls too young to know the difference between cut-price fashion stock photography and legitimate street style. What this unlikely US best seller actually contains, apart from frequently perplexing advice columns and wholesome beauty guidance, is the complete New Testament.
Parcelled in the candy pink imagery and language endemic to magazines such as Seventeen or Tigerbeat, Revolve aims to bolster the faith of young Christian women and allow for ease of access to The Word. It also encourages a habit of good posture and advises against speaking with food in one’s mouth.
Thomas Nelson, the world's largest English language publisher of the bible, has craftily recognised that adolescent readers do judge the Good Book by its cover.
“Our research with teens showed that they found the bible too big or too freaky … to carry around” says the bible’s spokesperson and Brand Manager Laurie Whaley. She’s a member of the team responsible for making faith a more portable, and stylish, possibility.
In an effort to trade God to a teen-aged demographic, the company has added items such as a New King James Version with Compact Shoulder Strap and the thrill-seeking Extreme Teen Bible to its colossal product range in recent years. It was not, however, until the August 2003 publication of Revolve that the house effectively penetrated its challenging teen target.
Revolve is a marketing success story that was born of internet-based research. Maidens of the primarily Christian focus group complained that when confronted by the big, freaky bible they were simply at a loss to pick it up.
“When we asked teen girls ‘what do you read?’ we had the response ‘we read magazines’,” explains Whaley, a fantastically perky 29 year old Tennessee native, from her home in Nashville.
“Revolve was the number one selling bible of 2003” says Whaley. Current published estimates indicate that it retains its number one position to date. Although exact sales figures are unavailable, industry reports indicate that this new New Testament was a surprise hit nationwide and that a second six-figure print run has all but sold out.
Revolve has been so successful that a version for teenaged males, Refuel, is planned for release next month. “We’ve had some awesome emails from teen guys saying I’ve seen Revolve at my girlfriend’s house I would really like to get something for guys” says Whaley.
Whaley is thrilled by the success of a title that is sure to enjoy republication. She envisages, “an 18 month cycle for getting new editions. When we talk about content changes, obviously we’re not talking about the bible!”
Purist elders need not fret. This sassy New Testament will not revise the Last Supper to include a sponsored appearance by uber-teens, Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen. The New Century Version bible is unchanged; it’s just had a teeny makeover to draw out its inner beauty.
While the Greatest Story Ever Marketed will itself remain intact, there will be amendments to Revolve’s images and celebrity references in future editions.
The publication’s quizzes and reader advice sections that have proved such a hit with a young Christian audience will also be updated. It will be intriguing to see if Revolve’s editors can uphold the bravura standard set in the current issue.
In questionnaires that ask “Are you Crushing too Hard?” and “Are you Dating a Godly Guy?” (I checked, and I’m not) readers are marked for their chastity.
As instructive as are the quizzes, the genuine highlight for many readers of Revolve is the sidebar “Dear Abby” style column. “We have a feature called Blab Q and A. We answer questions from real teens on topics on everything from cloning and tattoos to oral sex to suicide to homosexuality and a variety of different things.” Says Whaley.
What, asks one question from a Real Teen, do you think about boyfriends tickling their girlfriends? “Tickling equals foreplay” counsels the anonymous Christian den-mother, whose knowledge of the Scriptures is so thorough that it extends to tickle-fight protocol. Tickling, needless to impart, must be rebuffed at all costs.
Similarly, thoughts of sex, an act described as “ a beautiful gift that God has given to married people”, in anything other than an educational way are sinful.
As for homosexuality: to employ the faux-hip parlance of Revolve, get outta here, girl!
Blab Q and A makes it clear “ that homosexuality is not the teaching of the scripture.” says Whaley
“God is going to love you regardless of your sexual orientation. But if you struggle with liking the same gender you might want to seek some help.”
There is much within Revolve that a progressive Christian might find repugnant. Reportedly, the first print run contained the axiom “God made guys to be the leaders. That means that they lead in relationships". Another questionable inclusion was this statistic “African-American teens are 40 percent more likely to have had sex than Caucasian teens." This may very well be the case. However, in a document so open in it scorn for promiscuity, the insertion of the fact is, at best, in poor taste.
The ugly conservatism of Revolve can be partially forgiven when one considers the needs of its target market. There are young women who, when confronted with the choice, would prefer tuition in virtue to the wanton, mid riff baring wriggling of Britney. Not every adolescent female is comfortable with the idea of life lived as a temptress in stretch denim. There are many gradations to choose, of course, between Vestal and Vixen. Kids, however, seem to be fond of extremes. It is the extreme temperament of Revolve that ensures it gels like teen spirit to some.
In a country equally adept at producing Christians and Target Markets en masse, Revolve just had to appear. Whether it is God’s handiwork or the greedy evildoing of Mammon is anybody’s guess.

I'm starting to lose track of all the Bush scandals. We have GuardServicegate, Plamegate, Oilgate, Harkengate, Yellowcakegate -- I'm sure I must have missed some. But of course none of this matters because -- horror of horrors -- John Kerry is a
Massachusetts Liberal!

Friday, February 06, 2004

First it was jiggly, butt kickin' honeys in Dead or Alive then there were jiggly butt bouncing honeys on the volleyball court, now MS is giving away "hugging pillows" emblazened with life sized images of bikini clad girls to boost sales of the XBox in Japan. Is this the security blanket for pubescent boys?

Tuesday, February 03, 2004

In the interest of research, I tried to interview a four-year-old boy about breasts. He was a tough nut to crack. First, he sang words that rhyme with breast. Some real. Some not. (We play word games sometimes.) Then he hung upside down from a chair and made faces. Just when I thought he might be about to express his outrage about the pictures of Janet Jackson's boob he had seen, he grabbed my iPod and I had to chase him around the room several times to get it back. So, I have no tearful remonstrations by a victim to report.

Meanwhile, Jackson has admitted there was a plan to expose her red underwear at the end of the steamy song she sang with Justin Timberlake.

In a statement released Monday night, Jackson apologized and said it was a last-minute stunt that went awry.

"The decision to have a costume reveal at the end of my halftime show performance was made after final rehearsals. MTV was completely unaware of it," she said. "It was not my intention that it go as far as it did. I apologize to anyone offended -- including the audience, MTV, CBS and the NFL."

Jackson's official Web site was bombarded with angry postings. Her spokeswoman, Jennifer Holiner, said a red lace garment was supposed to remain when Timberlake tore off the outer covering.

The most unattractive man in America, Michael Powell, is still claiming to be shocked (yes, shocked!) by the event. Unfortunately, Powell heads the Federal Communications Commission.

Powell promised an investigation, with potential fines of up to $27,500. If applied to each CBS station, the fine could reach the millions.

In response to multiple phone calls from the public, acting Houston police chief Joe Breshears reiterated that no criminal charges would be filed.

Despite the apparent premeditation -- the display coincided exactly with Timberlake singing, "I'm gonna have you naked by the end of this song" -- all involved denied that the peep show was planned.

"This was done completely without our knowledge," said Chris Ender, entertainment spokesman for CBS, which was deluged with angry calls. "It wasn't rehearsed. It wasn't discussed. It wasn't even hinted at... This is something we would have never approved. We are angry and embarrassed."

An examination of the FCC rules suggests the conduct may not violate them.

Over-the-air TV channels cannot air "obscene" material at any time and cannot air "indecent" material between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. The FCC defines obscene as describing sexual conduct "in a patently offensive way" and lacking "serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value." Indecent material is not as offensive but still contains references to sex or excretions.

Furthermore, in the past, the FCC has saved severe fines for premeditated acts that explicitly break the rules. This one or two second event, that most viewers did not see clearly, is hardly that.

On Monday's Nightline, veteran newsman Ted Kopple observed that more people watched the exposure on TiVo and the Internet than caught the real thing. Doesn't that suggest that at least some of the folks cavailing about the behavior sought it out?

And, let's not let Powell off the hook. Michael Powell has plans, I suspect. Po-lit-i-cal plans. Just like the other parties in the saga is he out to exploit it. Here's an opportunity for him to reap name recognition the head of the FCC doesn't usually get. And, since ole lipless has been an unpopular FCC chairman, he will play this to the hilt.

At this juncture, I think there is enough blame to go around - including Jackson, Timberlake, MTV, CBS and the NFL itself, which does its share to encourage vulgarity. I still believe the entire episode has been blown out of proportion.